Legal Research on Testimony of Brinson

    (st')ro'/ ''AEl.i're. 1̂094

limitation of section 4 and section 5 actions to the digtrict court in
Washington are no longer valid.

First of all, it surely cannot be said that the expertise in voting
discrimination cases is concentrated only in that court. Indeed,
many, if not most, of the cases most often cited originated in the
fifth circuit. Moreover, courts all over the Nation hear and decide
racial discrimination cases of all kinds.

Second, I would hope that the Congress and Federal officials
could give a vote of confidence to the Federal judiciary and its abil-
ity to handle the issues.

Third, local Federal courts have the recognized benefit of their
"own special vantage point{s]" to give an "intensely local apprais-
al" of the circumstances, as aided by better notice to the public of
the ongoing proceedingE, more input from affected parties, and
greater availability of evidence of history and impact.

Fourth, there is great practical significance. Because section 5
"applies to all entities having power over any aspect of the elector-
al procees within designated jurisdictionq," and even to governmen-
tal units with no authority over any electoral proces6, there are
thousands of townships, school boards, and other small, local units
which must preclear. If they are to have a realistic option to pro
ceed with judicial preclearance, then a local Federal court should

because no black had been elect€d there, it was irrebuttably pre
sumed to be guilty.

Thus, the predicament in which governing bodies frnd themselves
is kafkaesque. The covered jurisdiction may disprove invidious pur-
poqg, as R6me did, but such proof is to no avail because Congress
supposedly has said that where disproportionate impact exists pur-
pose cannol. [s disproved. So a]so a covered jurisdiction may meet
the so€Iled Zimmcr standard and yet be deemed to have enacted
changes with discriminatory effect. Ttre burden of proof under sec-
tion 5 is thus in reality insurmountable, and Federal restruciuring
of local government is inevitable.

The interpretation of the effect rule would certainly be applied
to an nrnended eection 2. Section 2 of the act should be extended as
presentll' written. If it is ".t'tended to substitute an effect 61 imPact
iest for the preaent intentional discrimination rule, it will, I
eubmit. revolutionalize the very basis of democratic government. It
will institutionalize the already distorted mean6 of the concepts of
political participation, nepresentation, voting strengrth. and candi-
date of one's choice. It will, in short, rcquire a guota of racial politi-
csl success. From a practical standpoint, it will render the mecha-
nisrns Of bailout, preclearance. and coverage formui" -saningleas
and will Bpawn literally a flood of litigation.

To me, the real tragedy of this sdeming march toward govern-
ment according to a numerical function is the loes of eight of what
true representative government i.6 all about. Somehow the per-
ceived iatrinsic vaiue of electing proportionally outweighs the de
sirable goals of government, which are service, protection, and re

\ st+ \o1+



94

r 5 actions to the district court in

said that the expertise in votine
rted only in that court. Indeedl
roet often cited originated in the
over the Nation hear and decide
inds.
: Congress and Federal officials
the Federal judiciary and its abil-

e the recognized benefit of their
grve- an "intensely local appr"is-
by better notice to the public of

nput from affected pardes, and
history and impact.
I significance. Because section S
'er over any aspect of the elector-
lictions," and even to governmen-
any electoral process, there are

ards, and other small, local units
to have a realistic option to pre
hen a local Federal 

-court 
sh6uld

totas is the other matter which I
r. Under section 5 the burden of
s proven to be impoesible. For in-
r_ of potential discrimination but,
d there, it was irrebuttably pre

governing bodies frnd themselves
:tion may disprove invidious pur-
'is to no avail because Congress
;proportionpt€. l+pact exists pur-
a @vered Surrsdrctron may meet
I yet be deemed to have dnacted
,. The burden of proof under sec-
rtable, and Federal restructuring

rule would certainly be applied
of the act should ba extended as
to substitute an effect e1 irnpact
discrimination rule, it will, I

rsis of democratic government. It
storted means of the concepts of
,ion, voting strength, and candi-
t, require a quota of racial politi-
lpoint, it will render the decha-
d coverage formula meaningless
itigation.
sgeming march toward govern-

Lction is the loss of sight of what
s all about. Someho* the per-
rroportionally outweighs the de
r are seryice. protection, amd re

1095

sponsiveneas regardless of race. A desirable objective would be to
guarantee representative government and not proportional govern-
ment. The desirable objection is, according to the Supreme C,ourt,
also a constitutional objective. While equal access to governmental
services is guaranteed, the election of officials of a minority group
in proportion to its voting potential is not.

Steering the concept of political equality for racial and ethnic
group€ on any other course is to presume that fair representation
can only be proportional representation and that candidate of one's
choice necessarily means candidate of one's race. The Supreme
Court has clearly discounted the notion that white offrcials repre
sent their race and not the elec'torate as a whole and that they
cannot represent black citizens.

While the proposed amendment to eection 2 may be perceived as
an effort to achieve proportional representation aimed at aiding a
group's participation in the political processes, in reality it may
very well frustrate the gloup's potentially euccessful efforts at co
alition building across racial lines. The requirement of a quota of
racial political Euccess would tend strongly to stigmatize minorities,
departmentalize the electorate, reinforce any arguable block voting
s5rndrome, and prevent minority members from exercising influ-
ence on the political system beyond the bounds oftheir quota.

Members of the black community would not be able to determine
the outcome of many, if not most, contests as they do in many
cities, but instead would remain forever a minority in their repre
sentative influence.

I In many covered jurisdictions there would be "no device more de.
f structive to the notion of equality than the numerus clausus-the

I-q*'"nclusion, I respectfully submit that Congr* ,r,o,rtffi
serve the provisions of the Voting Rrghts Act providing for examrn-
ers, inspectors, and observers and the nationn'ide ban on literacy
tests; that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should be extended
unaltered; that, if section 5 is to be retained at all, in a form not
modified according to the propcal of Representative Hyde, it
should be modified to allow the filing of declaratory ju<igment pre
clearance actions in local Federal courts; that if eection 5 is re.
tained, section 4 should be amended to provide for local court bail-
out by cities and counties which can meet a realistic bailout stand-
ard.

I have discussed other aspects of voting rlghts enforcement in the
appendices which I have attached to my written statement, Mr
Chairman. I would ask that the statement be entered in the record.

Senator HercH. Thank you. Mr. Brinson. Thank you for finishing
within the lGminute time Iimit as well-in fact, right on the dot.

Speaking from the point of view of a city attorney, please tell us
exactly how a jurisdiction goes about seeking preclearance of a
voting law change

Mr. BnrNsox. Mr. Chairman, first of aII. naturally jurisdictions
which are covered seek the route which the.v- s,ould consider to be
the least troublesome and. quite frankil'. the ieasr expensive, ar
they necessarily wouid do. That is rhe administrative route. by
making submissions to the Attolei C,e:reral



096

eling of frustration because vou do
rney General is coming from. you
;,. You do not know w-hat iii ;;-
ris position is or wheth", you t ru")r, you do not really get a rapid

a of going to the District C,ourt of
ras its concomitant expenses and,

upon your assertion on page 4 of
novo proceedings in the District of
:ionable."
Mr. Chairman, first of all, when
Tul{ ls not due process in going tolnutratrve route-that is, there is
ls oj .lac!, and you really do not
o ol., U there is an objection_the
tat r!s: Well, you c"o alt ry. go to
of Columbial You do not 

-ha;; t"t gives you the opportunity for a
th"l t-rr" been applied by the dis-
rd-mrnlstrator contemporaneously
r a statute, then the courts defei
'etati-on of his own rule. ln fact, rfly-that is, on his construction-
by that construction.

eral already ha.s ruled and object-
s are going to have the tende-ncv.,what he already has found wifh

u will, the annexations that the
l.
of our first submission there was
mposed on the city itself. It was
ieorgra over the objections of the

ncorporated island in the middlerr the purpose of obtainins citvd, the _Attorney General -*.oti:

1noqf .d.emographic information,
toral hi"tory of the city, which
oexations which had takln place
rtions were purely vacant 'land.
:e there wa6 no electorate.
ly., before any court action, did
vhen it was shown to him that
rr vacant land. However, he @n_
ecause it was Ba.id that thev had
ilr'isions and, therefore, 'ioulJ

of-your writren statement you
:t Journai. I shall guote one 6ec-

109?

iio; " 
the article dealing with the municipal problems of Gary,

Nowhere are these prohrems more evident than in-the ateel city of Gary, whereMayor Richard Hatcher hr" ;p";i h; iTl,; i, .offiqg trying to st€E ci\.ic decsr.caused by a falteri,,g lpat economy. rr" i^a-rt" that beyond eome smalr achievements, his efforts haven,t succeeded
Mayor Hatcher Duts.most orthe btame for that failure on the state government,which he aavs hasbrock.d G.,}'-i;r;;;;io 

"*p"r,g 
its to. base and is.ue bonds to

lilf *"*o?Jo? 
busir: ess and-,n Just['- t" ipri* it"-**iiffi #'rmes over the

He e8'id that the mct aerious blow the state delivered car:re in the early seventieswhen it erempred an area around car5'-rroi'a h* ;h;;p-h;#;;rp.ration of anew citv within three mires of, *. ":-tr"i or. Thri-;;J;;;"i*"ilii"a an area ofwhitr homes and businesees, which oa.y f;aa'co".,tea f;-fi;;";i:ll ir_rporrt"as Merrillville, thus escaping p*"iUt" 
"""*rtion by Gary.- 

' - ' -.,--' i

If this had occurr$ i" ,. jurisdiction covered by section 5, howwould it have been deart rn'iitt iftire proposed amendment to sec-tion 2 becomes law,.courd the annexati;i;;;k;;;i;"" despiteGary's economic problems?
Mr' BnrNsoN. First of glr, you asked about section s. Aside fromthe problem of not permitting- it 

" """u*rlio":-trr"i il, it 
" state,snot permitting it by legislation-if Gary were in , co*."a jurisdic_tion and it wanted 

-to 
annex a white cog,munity for expansion of itstax base, then it probably would not ha"e 

-bi;-$['t 
do so be-cause that would have diiuted the position 

"i tt " .irJ.ity in thecity.
senator Hercn. At reast that is what the House version of sec-tion 5 says.
Mr. BnrNso". Tpt q rigl,t If eection 2 is applied, then I woulddaresay that a eection z sriit *;"ilL filed if lhe annexation wereattempted.
Senator Hercn. f-hqt l" present law as well, is it not?Mr. BnrxsoN. It is, but 6r;";l; requires intentionar di.crimi-F.gtlicp-

I rnf*'fi*HffL,Hi"5*.T 
"H,"T #"wn 

rrom eection 5F7
I 

'#L1HHI*I,LHi,:, "ffffi,*Y, *;,iH *I":'#"; ffi II* lq"n my experieo*"oa it-hi"k'lne'dlr:rSfi]fiE* 
"t oa"for this propmitlon-that the section s effects t€st i6 enforced in a

I1l,T_11yf proportionat representation. 
-i il ;"; y"u a per_Sonal expenence.

When I begaa t,Le submiqsion procees olthg changes through theAttorne-v crenerals o4c", oo oo" of -y zB visi-ts;'w""friogtoo *that efforr' I had. on intervie* *itt o"e or trr" ;"iJ;;" in theAttorney General's offrce
Senator Hercrr. Are you referring t" *" Civil Rights Division?Mr. Bnwsox. yes, in lhe,rotios-;&roo.
He asked rne, "How pgl., *-G"iti""- do- you have on your cit-vcouncil?" I "rl{ 

.,NTg.,lHe-said, ;,wu"ii" 
irr'., i;;'r*".of black-sin the city of Rome?" ] oiq, "20 ;P p"-roit.;G"JE d, ..Fine.

Then what we need to do.is devG 
"-pt""-t" "*"* ii;G" biackswill get on the ciEy cornmissjsa.''

f-i-759 c - a: __ 7a



1098

I frnd that is true in tarkinglo city atto-rneys ail.over_th_e st^at€'

They encounter. that attit'a"l From 
-an 

administrative standpoint'

it "i 
i" the waY it is enforced

If vou will read thil;;t:; situa.tion in the Cit\ of Romc case out

of the District "f 
C"i;;;i;ti'. ;;a *" ti* thai *'as the objective

there. There was a iilai"i'ii'-irte citv of Rome of which I am quite

proud. I have quo*i'it^"'i.ii"i.i. ri"iings of tl,e court in one of the

;*tSl",t,T"T*i:ffif"l,tt"t 
Iru'F orren hord the balance or

Dower in any electi#"in i"ffi;fio' iltt'tt thev are extremelv in-

huential in the poi'it#a'i"*i"tr"ity' and that the government

always ha-s resPondi'i"ti'hr i"-it'"l"t"test of minorities in the com-

munitv. This wa-q "HJi;;;itj,'; 
ft"t court' but bv the court in

trr"-biittiat of Columbia - --r:-^ +L-t +lro nhar
Neverthele*,. tnJ'fJ*' reason for findine that the changes in'

volved did have rhl :ii;.i *;'tt .t no uta"ch had been elected in

the city of Rome' fo rn"' if'"i itrst- means that the objective is pro-

oortional ."pru"""'Jt;;' fiitd I think rs undesirable'
' senator Hrren' ffifi';6;i;bt;;; t'pon vott remarks that the

"tl;"rT ffi,t"f".*1t3:'#i""**.i"nce makes me feet that wa.v-, for

this reason: I thinkih" [f'"oty'yo" rn*i t*X at is not so much rrho

is in government as- what iovernment does l expect any repre'

sentative of mine,t'r''tii'lirtl"-cotor Lay ue' to represent me' I

tfrinl att citizens feel that *'aY'

Therefore, vo,' 'ioua^'l;i'^ 
q! what comes out of government'

What is goro".r ro"iT?i-tuti'tr Go'."t"tlt't serves the people' Gov-

ernment responos to tt'" people, I't is suooosed to'

We oroved that in tf'" C1tr.9f Ao*" -Zi[-itre district court found

tnll'i#'"""ri; ft-#;;;; niai"g=' which .are attached, 
-t: 3-'- PaPer'

there are " 
n,r*U"f"iiffil',h? rf,orn"a tn" responsiv-enes-s of the

governmentunatf'"gover-nment*^i""prol'idedtotheminorit'v-
element of the *;;'i;it:t'.'fli ;;;; deemed to have the effect

or potential 
"m*i'iiiotrimination' 

-ti*pl."-. 
because no minoritl'

-"irU"t had been elected'
To me' first of ii, "[-tf'""'ed 

aiso.that none of the changes that

were made *"," i,,';s"fgl ;;;;;lio"al docrimination Ttrat also

r*'a-. found by the ct'urt Thqn *" tito"'"a the effect of the leg:isla-

tion has been to pr"-,ia" these.-services and to provide this re

sDonse. Nevertheldj #;;;; tliil-d;;"d to have had a discrimi-
"#;;'"ff&i. fo o,"' that is Kafkaesque

Senator H^*'"'iou?;-; i;{icate in vour tgrn?t5 that vou

believe the effect-. ,x,: ffiftI" "JiJ'ii,"'rLsults 
t"ft i, section 2'

mav actually strgmatize minor-ities C'ouid you expand on that?

Mr. Bnlxsox' Yes'
Senator Hrrcn'-fhat do-you mean bv that?

Mr. BnrNso*' b""- of-the reasont'"in"l- **" ,o!^o: electoral

changes *"r" ou|#Li';";; b*"'"t it was def,ermined thev

would prevent tf"*J'igrfsl'oi-'otp i*t'"iq'" b1- the minorit-"* in

our jurisdiction ii l'o"*ifl "'pand 
what single-shot votrng means'

I sussest to you^'th;; ir--ro;-; have a ven' defrnik retrogressrve

effecl-on tL,e enectlu;;"* ;ii mrnc'riry o,"'o,xt 
'*'ho 

may be eiect-

"a 
i., " "r"ttimember 

boa:'d for thrs rea-son

If you
spread a

Eevere, r
seeks, cf
vote hi:r
is one of

Under
voting-
of the o
paiCn trc

say. r(
siigle'sl
Why sh,
for me?'

The n
elected
and tha
Wall St
definite
elected.
logical r

Senat
courage

Mr. I
ing pot

Senal
proport
have a
having
district
on the

Mr. I
Sena

case?
Mr. I
Sena

case?
Mr. l

the wa
forced.

Sene
of this
r*'ill le
nothi-n
if sect
tional

Mr.
only n
the At

Senr
that i
that tl
tors b
would



8

:ity attorneys all over the State.n an administrative standpoint,

ion in lhe Qf.v of Rome case out
I see-tlso that was the objective
.t;_rl_tu"ryS of which r ail ,i;;
lorngE ot the court in one of the

,.F.,oft""- hold the balance of
!.:., El"t, they ar-e extremely in-
1Ey, and that the government
tpres.t of minoririe.'in ;d;;;:
rocal court, but by the court in
finding.ttrat the changes in-. no black had been 

"t"Et"a 
l"

1ff -th?t rhe. objectiv" i,r;;nx is undesirable.
te upon your remarks that the

.-T3I"E mg.feet that way, for
rrr6t Iook at is not so much who
TL9"e I.expect any reprr.)r may be, to represent m'e. I
nt comes out of government.
Trment Trves the people. Gov-
supposed to.
,.ca6e. The district court found
:9!,"-r," attached. to my paper,
rwed the responsivenefo of'the
vrce provided to the minoriti.'ere deem.ed to have the effecisrmply because no minorit-r.

lhat none of the changes that
rnal. d.iscnmination. T[at also
lyl th". effect of the legisla_
rces 

-and_ to provide this re
emed to have had a discrimi-
le.

;t ! fouL remarks that you
t the results test in section 2.tud you expand on that?

>y that?
that eome of our electoralsg it was determined thev
c-lntguq b1' the minoritl. i-int arngleshot voting means.

very .detrnrt€ retroffressive
r member who ma_y & 

"1".t-80n.

1099

,,llJf '"ffi tr"_:t?##,H:,tlddi,it+.-*:tlH.ff #tBevere, polarized

*i,#,Crx*im:jl#Hi.'",#.;}ilr,ffiffHi
is one- of a- fi ve-.memb"; b;rd; l#r;;.

Under. 
-the theory ;; ;;;'il;&?

;t'ttfi tlil+,::+rilTm:tx,"!."*E{tffi fi ,,H':"llT
p-'.-_6'ir;;;ti9ily,_"r1"tre#'*"inf "Ii*H.rr.n8n"$fi ffiBay, "You are not.going-to vote foime erya.v. V;, 

"*; going tosingl e-shot vote. yiu -dld - 

r i"ir?" rio t 
"uo t". "wr, 

r- rfr Jr-r d-'I' res po n d ?Why should , *TO."r* m yiu, U*"rp you are not going to votpfor me?', I sav thet-i1a cou"teipioarcirve mea-sure.

", 
#jo1fiX?" f , # ; l.i; ; lii; Iiiii, ; U;ilJ.a,.,h o has bee n

niffi #'r*.T:ni*{d#ll,#il{l#*ffidehnite feerine of frustration or mini.rty membelF who have beeniitrH#iij'J;" I*"''iq"; '+""ti"a aone;' r*yii,';, is the"s";;;rr^il:':{:l.ii'i*1,ft *l:}T,trH,-,trc[Ti*;";.courage racial oolitic{shetto;rati", i" rhrs countrv?
i,,y;;,B,H*?* Ab.oru;eD iifri.,i:iii',;;;*1i the ord merd.

Senator Hircn. I qr. contention is correct,- that this will lead to

[i?rii,:in"rom*,:E! siJtr;d j,lil,,##;*; 
r,having influence ":r,=]n:;f,Ii" !#fi.^"- i.n th.ese at:tarce voting

:*Ul*{.$;:"Tr*+*Hi-.i*mffi 
HrfSiir'HrH'fa'lvESernator HercH. D" t;;i;""il iouUt that that would be the

Mr. BnrN_sox. I beg your pardon?

"-fr"tt 
HATCH' Do you -have 

an.v doubt that that would be the
Mr' BnrNsoN' I rear)'.do not. I think that is the naturar fa,out ofll,i;:, both section-ti;bfi;;;ililJ and section 2 wou.td be en-
senator HercH' we have had a rot of witnesses on the other sideof this issue come * 

""9 
-"ri tr,r'iirri) ?n aee no way that thisrll.l*q to proporrio"J r"iro"-nrjiil'" _, berieve it can read ton-othrng but proportional represe";i;;' Do.y.o, Eee anv wav that.

fr"ffi ".l?,L!ffi"o1t*o'd;ir";:'if *iii-"il't#i'tJ!.opo,-
Mr' BnrNsox' No. I don't. I think that is-ttre objective; that is theonry wa-v to meet the effects rt"rd*;; it has been interpreted b-r.

:+*??ry;tr,l:#,:;;*;; ;;* one or,he arsumen,sthst is made bv the proponents of section 2 in the Houi bilr L.that thev co. 
" dt oro"6 1tl"ii 

-; 
;B';n o_u6! agar n_c : ciis ::,rm in a _tors because of the 

"eqGit" -,"r;;,;;"rd Tner a:rue tha: rherwouid have to go bac( Gt" tt " -r"'Foi ti,. S;.. -..;...,aro:-s ,*.r,.



1100

aet up the at-large district to begrn with to determine r*'hether or
not there was a discriminatory intent'" 

M;. Ii;il;i i di""cree wiitr that. I am a trial lawygr. There are

".;;";L-i;p.i*iptdin 
other area-. of the lar*' now. For instance,

;l[;'d;; ;h;; G a rule on negligent entrustment of an auto
;dii; '-'til;;si; -The r&ui.qmeit.I that you show actua] knowl-

"ag" 
of tt u inc"om-petence of the driver-to w-hor-n you en!:ust your

iu"tomobile in ord'er to be negligent' Everybody.E?Ig: "Well' you

can't show actual knowledge. The man will deny rt." tlowever'-you
;;;h;; t;;"1 k"";tJgduv circumstantial evidence' C'ertainlv it
;; -b;-d";;. So-"ti-o it is-" larger burden of proof, but it is not
an impossible burden of Proof.* 

S;;;t"r-fior"".-yo,, sly it is a different b-urden of proof but not

i--o"*iU[e. ls it too difficdlt, in your opinion?
"'1ffi';H;;;to". -N", 

Tt-is not. in faci, i" Tr* opinion the. Ci6 .o/
Uiiit"-iii i" -i"io"rtiued. I think the larl is that' while the

;;;;r-f";t"* do not in and of themselves show discrimination,
;;;;';;" *ia""." r.om which the inference can be made that there
il;;;;il1 ;;;tr-i;"tion The one requirement is that tlre fact-

F*'d;;'; tL :uag" t x"s it one step firrther and says' "I have

i;kA "l rii tfi"r""things and. from that, I- infer that there was ir-
;;;i;"J dircrimi.ratiori'" I think that is what Mobil'e ',vs'*l!;;;t 

Hi'cr'' ti i"' take the section 2 language as-it presentlv

i";itt"; i" tr'" HoGL uitt' would you agxee with me that it would

;;;-i;p""sibie to defend yourself. even though there.maJi ne'er
;;;; ";;t d any i-ntent nor any proof of discrimination in qly yay,
.f,"*. o. form, ti.cumst "ti"tiy 

br otherrrise? It ma.v- be diffrcult to
defdnd yourself a4lainst the accusations'J--ili;. d;*ro;. i; *;-i-p*"iutu for Rome to defend itseu. I think
th;-Eam; ahing would ,piit_" if the effects standard is amended in
;tir" r. li *7* imposs^ibti for Rome to rr"in its case because no

black ever had been elected._-s""'t"'Hlrcrr.Yo.,"'"notarguingthatweshouldhavean
inLni test which requires just direct evidence?

Mr. BnlNsox. Absolutell' not.'s";rt", H"rc". y;; ;" oyi.rg cir-cumsrantial evidence, as well

a."-a-i.Ei 
"otaence, 

inlluai.ng the Ge of dr.sparate impact evidence, is

oresent ]ar+-?
"'il;:'i]ilsox. lncluding inferences that ma1- be drar*'n from that'

Senator Herca. G.t"i:"ii', if-ift"." was an'inference of discrimi-
nation it would be presented to the -iury'

Mr. Bnlxsox. That is rrght.
S"r,.to. Hlrrx. Uoa"iii," section 2 pror-ision 6-c presentl-1 

=it-t ; * ;;; Ho"* bill. i,orr"r"r.r-here.there Lq an' so-called "objec-

;;;-L;;, or als".i-ioation" plus iacl: of propoltional representa-

iion, the rssue is cut and dried. isn't it?-- 
ni'.. gRr"sox. It is cut and dried. It Ls Kafkaesque'
3l"ut"t Hercn t- f".t' it is true that you do not even need in-

ferences of discrimination is it not'--M;. 
bn xsoN. No' not if there is an effect.< ca'se-S"""t", Hlrcn i" oii,"r 

'^ords, 
the citl'.-the count]'. the munici-

oJitt. or the Statr ma1'a-'weii accept iu fate because there Ls no

[F-*ii"" ";"]' to defend'yoursel{ uncier thl' test"



Lh to determine whether or

rm a trial lawyer. There are
t the law now. For instance,
nt entrustment of an autc
lhat you show actual knowl-
'to whom you entrust Your
Bverybody says, "WelI, You
will deny it." However, You
antial evidence. CertainlY it
rurden of proof, but it is not

rent burden of Proof but not
inion?
in my opinion Lhe CitY of
the ldw 'is that, while the

rselves show discrimination,
ence can be made that there
requirement is that the fact
r further and eaYs, "I have
at, I infer that there was in-
is what Mobilc eaYs.
cn 2 language as it PresentlY
agree wittr me that it would

'en though there maY never
rf discrimination in any way'
erwise? It may be diffrcult to
P
Uome to defend itself. I think
'ects standard is omended in
r to win its case because no

ng that we should have an
vidence?

:umst^antial evidence, as well
disparate imPact evidence, is

hat mav be drawn from that.
was an-inference of discrimi-
v.

I provision as PresentlY writ-
tfrere is any so+alled I'objec-

k of proportional rePresenta-
I
s Kafkaesque.
hat you do not even need in-

:ffects case.
city, the count]'. the munici'
t its fate, because there u no
thi6 test?

1101

Mr. Bnrxsox. That is exactly right, If there -i" q"y inclination
t"*"ia-f*aing that there is racial Slock vote and no black has ever

;;;-;*t"d, ih", yo,, have loet your caae' That appears to be re
iI"}"* "iit"ttr"i 

or not any black has ever run in an election.
"-i---iIti-.ai ial may, Mr. Chairman, that I have !*ltS at all
th; t b-l; ."a'rtt the siudies. I think there ig a sorely lacking piece

;T-t"f;;"tto., U"fo." this committee;-that is, some statistical evi-

;;;;;t ho* -.rry elections there have been in which members

Ii a -i"o.ity race iin and were defeated. I do not think there is

"i," 
6iipia"il compiiation along those lines. It would be revealing

tifr"-ig-iri-itfi.-it is an important piece of information that is
needed by the committee.*S;;;t 

; ff^*". L.t -" ask a question from Senator Grassley.

H;-;L,-,,Wfr"f-",itt be the impa6t of the results amendment to

,."tio" d on a city or county alriady subject to preclearance under

section 5?"*14r.--g*r*sox. 
That is a good question because, if section 2 is

"-"irafi,-i 
think it i" .U.ot-utely going -to a]ryorb and overwhelm

r.ation a'"ttd eection 5 matters, anyway' for this reason:*i;t;; 
"d;; 

that the city of Rome passes some electoral change,

""-oii* 
to-ttr" Attorney Genera], and gets p_reclearance. If there is

Iiftiti"" to it, if you get preclearancg "t 
d come back and t* to

iiititrfi it, you ar6 goiilg to get a section 2 suit immediate-l, ].o,1
;ii';;;;'k;o* *ttit is-stable government' Section 2 can be frled

.f ..rV ti-" on exist4g or changed electoral pr-ocedures 
. .--Suri"1o. fUrcn. Ttr"ank you,-Mr. Brinson. Your testimony gel-

t"i"1|-ft been inteioti"i. W" app..ciate the backup materials
;-;"; atite to the committee as well' We ra'ill incorporate your

i"ff rt"ti-""f u"a gll attachments into the record at this point'

Mr. BnrxsoN. Thank You, Senator' -

fu-e Gpatea statemlnt of Mr. Brinson follou's:l



1108

that the cxpertire i,n voti.ng drscrin:nation cases is concentratad
only in thlt court. Indeed, EAny, if not Er.t, of the
caser most often cited origj.n.tcd in t}le pifth Circuit.
lloreover, courtB al] over the nltion hcar rnd decide racjal
discinination caEes of al.l kinds.

Second, I yould hope thrt the Congreaa rnd federal
officialE could give a vote of confidence to the federal
judiciary and itB ability to handle the isaues.

Third. local federal, courtB hav6 the recognized berrefit
of their 'ow;, spe3ia] vantr-oe po:ntlsl" to give an .intens€]y

loca). appraisal'8 of the circmatances, !s aided by b€tte:
notice to the public of the ongoing proceedings, nore input
fron affected partj.qs, lnd qrerter avarlabj.lity of evtcience
of hiEtory lnC impact.

. Pourth, there is great pr.ctical aignificrnc€. Because

Section 5 'appij,es to a}l en:ities hlving poyer over an)r

aspect of the el.ectoral procea5 yithin designated juriBdj,ctions,,
United St.t€s !- 8o.rd of CorfiiEBlo;d,iBl-*.15- U. S. 11o -<frfi)
rnd eveh to governnental units sj,th no authority ove! any

electoraL procesa, Dougherty County Borrd of Educltion g:
tlhite, {39 U. S. 32 (1978), there are thousabds of toynships,
schoo] boardE and other snalI, local unitB yhich rnust preclcrr.
If they are to hlve a real,istic option to proceed vit})
juCicial precLearance, then ! local federaL court 6houId bc

.vai labl.e.

SECTIOIi 2

ous.
section 2 oj the o.. 

"n"uru-*-Iended as presentty
yritten. If i.t iE menCed tc au-bEtrtute !n.cffec:. or
'inpact'te': for the preser! rnteitionar drssra'inatio,
ru).e, it sr:-:, I 6utr:t, revclutron)ze:he ve? baEis of
dehocratic goYernrneni. It sjrl lnstltut:cnalize the alrerd).
distortea mean:ngs oj t.he concepfs rpc:j:rcai pa:t1aipattor.,
'representatio;.", .y6gin9 E:rengti. rr,C .clndidate of one,s



r c!3cE 1r conccntrated

D.t, of the

.fth Circuit.

rldl dccidc racial

, eni fcdcra]

o thc federal

UQE .

ccognized bcnefit

give en rintensely

aided by better

ings, rcre input

lity of cvidence

ficancc. Bccauae

over ova! an)'

gn!tcd Juri.dictions, r

\U. s. rto (trla).
ority ovcr any

f Educ.tion i.
andc of towrr6hipE,

vhich nust preclc.rr.

rocecd uit}|
court shoulC bc

d !. ple3cntly

'cffGct'or
i rcria.ination
vcry brsis o:
a1j,rc the alt€.dy
!l parricip.tion.,
ndidste ct on€,8

n09

choic.'. lt yul, in .hort, rcguirc l suot! of rlei.l
pollticrl luccc.B. lron . prlcticlI .trndpolnt, lt yill

lcndlcr thc ncchrnitur of bailout, prcclclranca rnd covcrlgc

fonrullc ncaninglctl, andl vill rprsn, lltcrally, e flood of

I 1 ti g!tion.
;.

to DG, thc !.i1 trrgcdy of thir rccning narch touardt

gov€rnnent'-rccoldting to r nuerictl function ir loai of

right of rhat truc rcprcrentativc govcrnn nt Lr !11 about.

Sonehou, thr p€rceiv?d intrinsic v!1uc of clccting proportionllly

outyeigh3 the dcrirable goalr of govcrrulent, to-vlt: rervicc,
protection and rerponsiveDcBf, lcgardleaa of rrcc,

Elrly voting crtrE .ccro.d to focur anrc clcarly. :'fha
right to exerciac thc frrnchire ltr a frcc and unirrpaircd

DlnDer ir Egre.".!& of othcrvite baaic civil and politic!]

riqht3,' Rcvnold6 v. sins, 377 U. 6. 533,.561-2 (f961).

see.1!o Yick I. v. Eopkins, II8 O. 6. 355 (1886). (Enphasir

addedl) .

Early caaea hald that the egual protectlon clause -

atrconpaslca Ggurl acces3 to governtDentl]. aerviceE. fratn"r

v. Citv of rEuphiE, 359 U. S. 350 (]952); !g ". * *
Educ., 317 u, S. a83 (195{). Thcn, ln f966, 1D xattcnblch

L ltorqan, 381 U. E, 5llt (1965), a nexus bcteGcn thc iPortance

of votj,ng and govcrnmentlf r.!ponB" Yla cttablirhcd. lhe

first rltioDale lor the dcci.i.on YrE tlrat CoDgrcla tound

that the ftrte of Ncu IorI bld int.ntionally di.crilrin.tcd
lgainat Eprni.h-tperlj,ng cltizenG 1n tjrc furni.hlng of

goverruoent!i lcrvices, .nd that thc prohibltion of r di.criBj.nltor)'

Iiterac)' tett vaB an aPProPrilte rccdy for t!:!t constitutiona]

violstion, IL'tt 652-53, ltre Court, thcrelore, hcld thrt
thc prohlbition of thc litcrls! tc.t vts rpProPri.ta legitlatlon

to Gnforc€ t]l€ right to gov€lnmntal aarviccs.

ttore recently, in the oft-crt.d clrc of ziircr L
llcxeither,, 185 r. 2nd 129? (19?3), one of the indicia stich

uay afford lore evidence of a discriEinrtory PurPoBe j'r tl:e



l1l0

'unrerponiivenesB of l'gitlrtort to I' Dinorityrtl Partlculari"d

intere3tB.' Id' !t 1305'

Thedesirableobiectivc'thcn'vouldb'togurrrntc'

rcpreEentativc govcrnment' not ploPortionll govcrnhcnt'

Ihi6deBirrbl.objectj'vcls,aecordlingtothesuPlcnlccourt,

alooaconEtitutionalobjectivc,foryhilcequa}acceseto

governDental' terviceG ir guarantecd' Brown v' Bd' of Educ''

ruprr, the clection of officiala of ! ninority group 'in

proPortloD to ltt voting Potentialr is not' !.lobile v'

Boldlen, la5 u. S' 55; Bee! v' unlted Strtea' {25 u' S' I30;

whitev.Req:ster,4t2u's755;&l!ggs!v'chtvi6''c3u'

s. l2/t .

SteeriDg the concePt of Politica] cguality fo! racial

and ethnic grouPs on any other cour3e i3 to Prctune that

'fair represe::a'-ion ' can gnry be ProPortional rcPr'Eentltion

and tha: 'canCldate of one't choice' necessarily lteans

.csndidateofone,grace..TheSuprerecourthasclear]y

drscounted the notion that Yhite otficials rePreEent their

race rnd not the electorlte as a vhofe and that the,- canno!

represent bla6k citizens' P91s9 Countv v' Reere' l2I U' S'

{??; Dusch v. Davis, 38? U' s'\ l'12; Accord' Vo}l'in v' f,i'rnbel '

5I9 F. 2nd 790, 79I (4tjt ci!') ) cert'denied' {23 o' S' 935

(1976). 
\

If Section 2--i6 amended (or if Section 5 is Pernittec

to b€ entorce6 b) a resuit Etandatd) ' then the concePt of

polltical eguaiity for racial and ethnrc arouPs uill have

been radica}ll' reCefined' The Act ti]l have evci'veC rntc a

federal guarant)' of a tight tc naxinun Polltical effectlveness'

or, indeed, a guota of Polit:cal 8uccesE' The 'effec"'

proscribeC by the Act Yilt be deered to b€ the drsp:oPrtjona.-e

rc6ult cf Polit-j'cai Processea' rlthcr ttun dtisprcpc:tionrte

lcce3atothoseProcesae6.But,racialguotAsareleas

jurtifiable in the Political contex" than iL any otber

asPact of tocjety' It has been observed tba" none of the



yia: Prrtleularlzrd

o guatantac

rvcfnD.nt.

SuprGre Court,

lr1 accctt to

nd. of ldluc.,

I grouP rin

rtobi lc v .

125 t,. S. I30;

chrvlt, 403 U.

!y lor rtcial
rcauE ttrlt

r1 rcprclcntatlon

rily canr
her clcarlY

Prctcnt thcir
!t thcy clnnot

crc, a21 O. S.

o1lin v. xinbcl,

a23 D. 6. 936

5 i3 P€rnitt.d
te conccPt of

rpr uill have

cvol,ved into a

rcrf cffectivenesB,

rc'cffect'
rd dtirproportionrt€

!;proportionate
rg rre less

any other

t none of the

lllI

rcaronr cu.toDrrily glvcn for thG u3c of r.tslrl and cthnic

quot.r ln aducttion .PPly to the reaLu of voting:

crn quote. be ,u;tifi.d r. P.rt of .rr .ffort ao "i."a.
rrtlcilIly thrt Dix which vould h.ve cvol'vGd ntturrfly

undrr DrG eurpiclout circElatrncca? ln tbc rchoolr,

Ircrhrp.' but not in govcrnrcnt. Politic.l offlccr rtc

not agulvalcnt to acttt ln a clla3rooD. GrouPt ln our

.ociety hlvc ncvcr b.en Politic.Ily rcPr..cnted ln

proportlon to thcir rlzc. fhc lrirh have b.cn 'ovcrrcprcrcr:tcdr'
.Jess vere long 'undlcrdcrrcPre6cntcd'' Culturc and

cxpcricnce - not tlt[Ply dlrcrinrinatlon - hrvc accouDtcd

for auch-dlffcrencea. Ior dgcr ProPortionll rlcirl

raprcaentltion iD votlng hlve anything itl co@n Yith

edlrisaions to dcsirable Gducltion ProgrlrEs. Th€re is

no barrier aat to voting, ls tlerc lr by relcctlve

ailni3sion6.. And one vote h!3 the rrtn€ vllue as .'ny

otlrcr. ThcrnatroD, the odd GvolutioD of the votilro

niqile lct, th. Publlc Intercrt a9, 5L-62 (spring

1979).

And uhlt of thc cott? !13. lhcrnstroD continucr:

Neithcr tha D. C. Court nor thc Juttlce DePartrcnt, in

other rordr, can bG ccrtrin thlt ona clrctoral srrange-

Dent 13 rupcrior to ttrc othcr. tnd the cost of. judiclal

andt exeeutlvc intcrfGrctrcc lnto locll clcctola] lrrrDgcrtcntt

ia considerrblc. tftren thc FedelAl govcrnnent iDtervcncB

in locrl clcctorrl arrrngcDcnt3 - rhcn lt .tteEPt3 not

ri.rply to .ugrnent Polltlcll oPPortunlti.E but rlao to

ahtpc Glcctoral rceuLts - it deprives the c.itilcns of

thcir right to .chicvc through conflict rad conc'ililti'on

thoDa GlGctoral alrlngcEntB Eat tultcd to tj.lcir

necd3. thcrDBtro8. tuDra !t 6a-55- 
.

fhe pr.ctlcal problcan of dctctiliniDg grouPa to Protcct

hrve long bc.n rccogtizcd. 6ce whitcoEb v. Ch!vr'3, !!E .t

155-7, Novherc, houcvcr, havc thcy bccrr Drc torccfully

lllustrltcd then in ttr. Ju.ticc Et.vrrt'! Iitrny in tlobilc;



1112

.Iti,dt:fflcu]ttoPerceivchovt}elrnp)'icationrof

tbed:33entingoPinion.sthcoryofgrouprePrescntrtion

could r!t-ion!IIy b€ cabine6' Indecd' certlin prcliminrry

pr!3'-ical gueations imnediat'Iy coEG to tnihd: Can only

DcEb€rs of r ntnority of the voting population in e

partifllar ltuniciPrlity b€ rEnbcrB of r 'Pollticll

grouP'? Eoe I'arge nuEt a 'group'bc to b' ! rlplitical

group'? C"r,'lrry'grouP' cEll it3etf r'Politicrl grouP'?

If nivt, Yho is to 3ay uhich '9roup6' lre 'Politicll

grouPs'? Can a quallf ied votcr b€long to mrc tltan one

'Political grouP'? Can therc b€ DorG than one 'Po1iticrl

group' r.rcng vhite voterB (c' 9" Iri3h-Atrcrica'L lt!li8n-

ADerican, PoIish-Nnerican' JeuE' Cltholics' Protestant3)?

Crn tharc bc hore than onc tPolitical grouP' r'nong

DonYhit voters? Do th' anseelB to rny of Lheae que6tion8

ttepend uPon the Particullr der6grrPhic conPoEition of !

given city? LPon ihe total tiz' of its voting PoPulltion?

OPon thc totrl tlte of lts govcrning body? tlPoD 1t3

forD of government? UPon it3 hiEtory? ItE geograPhic

location? The flct thrt GvGn thcEe prcliElnar!' guc3tlona

Dr-v b€ lrrgely unansvcrrblc rugge6ta 3oD€ of the coDccPtual

rnd Prlctical fallacic6 !D tlrc constitutional theory

csPourcdbytheClirlcntittgoplnion,Putti'lgtoone.idle

thetotaiabsenceof'uPPortlort}rattieorylnt}te

Constr.-ution itself" {4'6 O' E' 
't 

78' n' 26) '

In t-h€ 6r'F case' Irlr' Ju3tice 6tcvcns' in hia concurring

opinion, illust-rateE rrhy group-thinling ls iaproperr

ln the long run' tberc is no rcre c'rlalnty that in-

dividual Eenb€rE of racral grouP6 vj'Il vote alike than

that D€nb€rs ot other identtflrble grouPE vill do rc'

Ani sure}y there is rro national intereEt in crcating an

incentivP to defrne Po1:tlcal grouPs by rscial charac-

tcrllticD' I(L et 86'



iEplic.tion! of

)uP rcPret.ntrtion
crrtrin Pr.Iininary

Eo ldndl: Can onIY

cpulltlon in r

.'politictl
o bc ! rPolitical
rpoliticrl grouP'?

are'polltlcal
to rcrc tltan one

than one iPollticrl

.h-lrncrlclrL ltalian-

rolict, Protcstant!) ?

. grouP' anong

rny of theee guestiona

.c conpo6ition of a

lts voting PoPulltion?

body? gPon itr

l? Its geograPhic

rcliulnary quc3tiona

rooc of the conccPtull

itutional theorY

PuttiDg to one aidte

t thcory ln the

78, n. 25).

s, ln hie concurring

e i,-lproPer:

,rtlinty thrt in-

.11 vot€ alihc than

troup! eill ao ao'

rrelt ln cralting rn

; by racial charac-

1113

One thing ie'61eort

Political theorists can-readily differ on the !d-

vlntages inherent in different governtnentaf 3tructureB'

Ar l{r. Justlce Barlan noted in hi6 
'li6aent 

in

Fairley v. PatterBon, decided together Yith LLl9g

v. State Boardl of ElectionE, 393 U' S' 5'{ (1969): '

--
'[I]t it not clear to De hor a court Yould go

lbout dteciding Yhetler !n lt-large tysten ts to #

preferrcd ovcr ! di.trict sy6tetTr' Under oDe ayatem'

Negroes lrave gome influence in the clection of al]

officcrr; under the other, minority groups have nore

j,nfluence in the aelection of feuer officerE" Il tt

585 (enPhaEis deleted) '

Citv of Rorre v. united Stltes, 
'45 

U' S' at 2I9 (Rehnquist'

Steuart, J- J. , disBenting) ' And as Hs' thernstrotn observe8'

iNeithertheD.c.courtDortheJu6ticeDeParEoent...canb€

certain that one electoral arrangement is euperior to the

other.' ThernstroF !t 5'' comPrre the foregoing Yit!' the

argument of Hr' Jusiice t{arshal} ldvocrting t}le use of

single-shot voting'9 citv of Rome v' united Stltes' l{5 U'

6. at 186; Iobile v. Bolden, 4{6 U' S' at 105'

PerhapE herein lies the true, regrettab)'e cost' Whrle

most of uhlt you r€ad about effective governi'ng i6 tbeoreticai

and argumentltive, indeed. there Dry b€ Eone ehpirical

evidence of a Prgdrctrble, but unwantet' lrcX of effectjveness

of some $inorit) cfficials because of resuft oriented enforcenen:

They tnay be successful at the Irc1I6 but not ir' offici'ldoE'

An octobe!. 1980 riall street Journal articl'eI0 records some

of the fru6trations felt by black official6 n!tionuide:

[I]n ncst stEte legisia"ures blacks Bake uP tm sma]l a

faction to b€ counted rs a bloc' And in these ccst-

conEcious times, they increaslngly are.Eeeing theil

normal ideclogrcal alIies flee shen they BeeX legis'a-

tion to helP their constttuen:6'

9i-?58 C - 6:i -- ll



lll4

lha artlclc rl!o Bugge.ts, empirically, thlt repre cntation
lccordlng to rlcili proportioD iE not thc ansyer:

IS)one people rsk yhether, tside tron r)drbo]lsD and
rome p.tronlge Jobs, it rcllly Dlttcrs lf black votcrs
choo6e ! blact crndidlate over ! :.ikc_Elndcd vhite.
Gcorgc EternllGb, profcs.or of pollticll acicnce at
Rutgers Univcrsity, thlnki not. Bc hl3 atudicd thc
policies and effectlvcnele of bllck aDd yhitc Eur:icipal
axecutiveg in a nunbe! of cjties rith tlrga bllck
popullti.onc, and concLudes: .The faet is that race
haEn,t nade lny dj,fference..

It yould appear that, at lclEt somctiDcr, the regui.rement
of proportj.onal numUers of lepreEentative3 ls counterproductive
and, indeed, parrdoxically cluEes ! .retrogreErion in the
position of racial ninori,ties yith respect to their .ffective
cxerciae of the el,ectoral franchise.. Beer. v. Unj.ted Etllett
{25 U. S. r30. l.{I.

t{here blacks often hold the balance of poyc! in Glcetjon!,
as they do in Rome, it eould app€lr that bllck voter. then
blve more th.n .politicll poeer,. Ibcy rould lpp€ar to hlve
rvotj.ng power,' ,hich hla been .defiDcd !s the ability to
caat votes thrt chrnge election outcorEE., L. Tribc, A

freltise on Anerican Con6titutional I,.u ZSO lt97g). In lny
cvent:

A ninority, cvcn in ! flir .pportionnent acheh€, rculd
probably lrck t}tc lDyer to insure thst the poJ.icies it
favort are ldopt.C by the legislature, ft j.3, lfrer
all, e ainority. But it uould have . voice in the
forrnulltion of policy, and thia voice has val,u. lndep€ndent
of Jt. ability to clat a deciding b.llot. firstLcause
Ernor:ty rpokesnen E-rght p€lsuade the Dajolity L -,
given occasion ana tecolrd. bccauee tuch apoxerEer. Elght
!ltc! t}le long-run chlract-er of polriical tiought by
the prrticipatron j.n lGgr5}ltive dclj,bcrltion5. brcovcr,



Iy, th.t rcprc .cnt.tion

tD3Uar:

r rytnboll.D rDd

; if bl.cl vot.rs
*ndcd vtrite.
rrl aclcDca at
rr .tudlcd th.
rd rtritt Duniclpll
lrrgc bllcx
la thlt lace

lct, thc raguj.reDent

ir countcrproductlve

rerli.on Ln the

to thcir cffactiv€
v. Unltcd Ee!-

porcr J,n .lcctionr,
rck votcra then

ld eppcar to hlve

thc rbility to
L. 

"ribc, 
A

I1978). In lny

.

nt rchene, uould

thc policicE 1t

It i., .fter
roice in the

:as value_independent

)t, fir6t _bccause
[jorlty on tny

t tpolc.cn }ight
:rl thought by

rfrtions. llorcovc!,

I 115

the .itultion i3 valtly ovcrsiapltflcd by rfrlsrj'ng that

there are cognizabl., nutually cxclurivc, end cxhlu6tiv.

'urinorities' and 'Dajoritict.' Id. n. 2 (cnPhasiB

originrl). .6ee !18o Lubin v. PAniah, ll5 u. E. 709,

715 (I971).

while the ProPoaed atnendlment to Section 2 Day be Perceived !E an

.effort to lchieve ProPoltional rcPrescntation... rined at

aidling a group'e ParticiPation in thc Politicll ProceBses'r

United Jeui6h organizationB v. carev. {30 U. E. ta4, L72

(197?) (Brenntn, J., concurring), j'n reality it $ay very

uell fruBtrate the group'6 "Potentially successful effori8

!t coalition building lcroBE- racial fines.' I1: at 172-7'3-

the rdquirement of a guota of llcirl politicat aucces6

would tend strongly tc Etigrnatize tninorities, to comParimentalize

the electorate, to reinforce any arguable bloc voting "yndro,*,1I
and to prevent ninority nembers fron exercising influence or,

tbe poiiticll JysteE beyond the bounds of their quota.

llenbers of the black coununity vou1C not be able to deternin';

the outcone of aany if not !o6t contcsts, aB they do in oaoy

citiea, but, instesd' rould remain forever a ninority it'

their rcprcaentative influcncc. In Bany covered jurisdicr'ions,

there vould be 'no device rcre deEtructive to the notion of

eguality tlran the pwerus cfauaus - tlre guoia.' united

Steefuorkers v. lleber' a{3 U' S. 193. 25a (Burger, C. J.,

and Rehnquist, J., dlissenting).

CONCLUSION

I rcapcctfully ruhnit thlt Congress should Pre6erue t}e

provisi.ons of tlre votitlg Rights Act Profiding for cxanincrs

rnd inspectors and tlte nationuide ban on literacy tests;

thlt SectioD 2-of the Voting R'ghts Act 3hould be cxtendei

unalteled; t}lt, if Section 5 is to be retarned !t tll (in a

forn not rnodified according to the ProPoEal o, nePreEentative

Byde), it 3hould b€ nodrfred to alloe the filln-a of declarator),